Given the tons of existing subprojects not using their TLP name in their package name, I don't think this is an issue at all.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 16:05, Richard S. Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/24/09 7:40 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> >> I'd say the most known use case is axis, where all packages are >> org.apache.axis(2) and still is a subproject of web services. >> The list includes most of the webservices TLP, mina subprojects, etc... >> >> I'd rather go with org.apache.karaf myself. It would avoid any >> required renaming if ever going to TLP (I can see subprojects being >> org.apache.xxx, but i don't really see a TLP using >> org.apache.anothertlp.xxx). And unless we use the existing felix >> resources (jira, confluence, etc...) it would be more consistent. >> Most of the big subprojects have their own mailing list too. I don't >> really think we need this at this point, but my point is just to >> express the fact that subprojects can have a real identity. I think >> it mostly depends on the "size" of the subprojectm and my thinking is >> that Karaf is big enough to deserve its own identity, even as a >> subproject. >> > > Well, certainly, up until now, all of our subprojects do share everything > (e.g., mailing list, different components in JIRA), so that is definitely > not an issue now. When it becomes an issue, then the TLP discussion will > probably be the next step for sure. > > Anyway, my concern here is not over what we want to do, but what we should > do from an Apache process perspective. I don't want Felix (the project) > creating some firestorm by being seen as implicitly promoting subprojects to > TLP. > > -> richard > >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 13:30, Carsten Ziegeler<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Richard S. Hall wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Yes, it should be moved to trunk. We cannot base decisions on where to >>>> put stuff with respect to size or other criteria, that doesn't really >>>> make sense. We have subprojects, they go in trunk. That's all. >>>> >>> >>> Yepp, it should go to trunk and as Karl suggested only current trunk of >>> Karaf should be moved here. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Also, I think your package name would have to be org.apache.felix.karaf. >>>> I think this would be the rule, likewise it is not Apache Karaf, it is >>>> Apache Felix Karaf. >>>> >>>> Otherwise, the implication is that it is a top-level Apache project. Of >>>> course, I don't care and if the Apache rules allow it, then I guess we >>>> can debate it. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Hmm, I'm not sure if there are any rules. Afaik we can use any package >>> names we want (of course if it makes sense). There are other projects >>> at Apache which use different package names than their top level project >>> name (xbean from Geronimo being the most prominent). And they also call >>> it Apache XBean (http://geronimo.apache.org/xbean/index.html). So I >>> think as long as we don't clash with anything existing, we're fine. >>> >>> The question is: what is the better option of the two? If we're pretty >>> sure that this will become TLP later on, using just Karaf (Apache Karaf, >>> org.apache.karaf) seems right - if we're unsure adding Felix to the >>> name, package makes more sense. >>> >>> For now I would go with Apache Felix Karaf and org.apache.felix.karaf >>> even if this would mean to rename things once Karaf gets TLP (although >>> even then renaming of the packages would not be required). >>> >>> Carsten >>> -- >>> Carsten Ziegeler >>> [email protected] >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
